Those darned Laws Of Physics

[Tricky]

First to Tricky:

You talk about the fallacy of composition - am I understanding you correctly in that I think you are talking about the terms used being inadequate to convey the meanings behind them (obey, people are made of atoms etc). Or is there an actual objective fallacy of composition with the syll...sorry Whitefork - with the jingle? If the latter - could you explain in very simple terms - it may astound you to know () that I've never done formal logic - all I know about it is what I've read on the boards.

I've never done formal logic either, so don't expect my explanations to be authoritative.

My purpose in rewriting the... thing... was to remove the "composition". I took out the part that said humans had a trait because the things they are made of have that trait, which (I hope) eliminates the fallacy of composition.

(Just so you won't have to scroll down, my jingle was:

P1: All real things are constrained by the perfect laws of physics.
P2: Humans are composed only of real things
C: All componants of humans are constrained by the perfect laws of physics.)



Unfortunately, that dang nearly, but not quite, makes MY syllo... uh... jingle into a "begging the question" fallacy, since P1 and C are nearly, but not quite identical. Only the possibility that humans could be composed of things other than real things keeps it from being so.

Also I think I'm still going to take issue with the idea that the ultimate laws of physics being unreal because the knowledge of the them is probably unattainable. It doesn't matter if we can know them or if we cannot know them - they either exist or they don't, surely? If you say that they cannot exist because we cannot know them - then aren't you starting to sound a little like UcE?

Actually, this makes me the Anti-Elephant. the Ultimate Laws of Physics, like Infinity, are concepts, or if you wish, mathmatical limits. If "ideal" things are not real (as stated in my definition), then these concepts, while useful, even vitally important, are not real things. However, I rely on the concept being understandable, or my jingle is worthless. (Some might say, "too late" )

UcE believes that Infinity is more than a concept and is in fact a real thing. Here we differ.

[Edited to say: P.S. I like your new avatar, but my favorite is still your first one.]

 

[whitefork]

Hmm, I thought geometric figures were also made up of lines between points...These have at least one dimension, yes?...Someone who knows about maths can explain to me how many points a circle has.

You can say something like

Points are dimensionless
Lines are made of points
therefore lines are dimensionless.

Or

Lines have one dimension
Geometric figures are made of lines
therefore geometric figures have one dimension.

It doesn't matter. The point is that this argument:

X is made of A
A has attribute Q
Therefore X has attribute Q

Is not valid because it can have true premises and a false conclusion.

Valid argument - where the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true. A valid argument can have false premises, but in that case the conclusion may be either true or false.

See the threads called Introduction to Formal Logic and Fallacy of Composition for discussions ad nauseum.

There is a least one individual here who disagrees with this definition of validity. In his view, a valid argument has true premises and a true conclusion, and the terms in the conclusion must be present in the premises. This view is not widely held.

 

[Loki]

Sou,

Welcome back - nice trip?

The syllogism is pretty simple to expose - there are 3 different 'truths' here.

1. The premises are true,
2. The conclusion is true.
3. The argument (syllogism) is true (valid).

Franko says "if the premises are true, and the conclusion is true, then the argument must be valid".

This is the core of the problem - Franko's summary is not a true statement! logically, the argument is valid onlyif the conclsuion is always true when the premises are true. As Whitefork (amongst many others) have done, it's easy to produce examples of Franko's jingle in which the "form" os followed, and where the premsies are true, yet the conclusion is clearly false. Therefore, the "form" of his syllogism is false.

In other words, it's entirely logic to say (when refering to Franko's syllogism) that :

1. The premises are true,
2. The conclusion is true.
3. The argument is invalid.

All this does is to reduce Fanko's jingle to the status of "statement of opinion" rather than "logical proof".

Franko is trying to say "my syllogism is a logical proof - logic forces you to accept the conclusion if you cannot defeat the premises". This simply isn't true - accepting his premises does not force me to accept his conclusion. Of course, I can accept his conclusion anyway!

 

[Loki]

Stimpy,

You are asserting that there is something to the self which is not determined by anything outside of itself, and yet which is not random. That is contradictory. It must be one or the other.

Now, let me just say that this is exactly the line I've been arguing with various people. However, dropping into Devils Advocate mode for a moment, why must "Will" reduce to either determinstic or random? Why can't we define 3 essential "behaviours" within the physical realm, rather than 2?

1. Determined
2. Random
3. Willed

In this instance, "Willed" is a "base attribute", not reducible to anything else. It is only available to "conscious" objects. Given that definition, why must "Willed" be a contradictory concept? Can't it be a standalone concept? Sure, it might be viewed as an "unlikely" property, but why must it be considered contradictory/illogical?

 

[whitefork]

Hello Loki - Yeah, I just can't get enough of this.

My problem with this - I will call it a paralogism - is that I don't know what Atoms, Obey, Laws of Physics, and YOU mean. For all I know, the atoms are Dalton's or Democritus's. Laws of physics? Newton, Archimedes, Einstein, somebody else?

I don't understand the terms so I can't evaluate the truth of the claims.

 

[BroodingSkill]

Ok I'm gonna put my foot in my mouth and my neck in the noose here so be nice. I'm taking a course in Descrete Mathmatics in school right now and decided to make a truth table out of Franko's little jingle. So here it goes...

Given: atoms obey TLOP
people are made of atoms
people obey TLOP
(I hope I haven't mistated that..)

Let: P=atoms
Q=TLOP
R=people

so I think we're left with this

P and Q
R and P
---------------
therefore R and Q

Now I hope I haven't got this wrong, I often get things wrong, so please correct me if you disagree.

Now for the purposes of this I'll use T=true and F=false.

The truth table for the "and" logical connective is this.

P Q| P and Q

T T T
F T F
T F F
F F F


So accounting for three variables I come up with this.


P Q R| P and Q| R and P| R and Q

T T T T T T
F F T F F F
F T T F F T
T F T F T F
T F F F F F
T T F T F F
F F F F F F

The right most column( R and Q) is the most important here. This whole thing speaks to the propostional form of the arguments and the not the truth of the individual propositions. So baring this is mind the syllogism is not a "tautology" which means that all possible values of its propostional variables are true for all conditions(plus if you think I left out any conditions in the left column please say so I will correct it and adjust where appropriate). It isn't a "contradiction" which is that all of the truth values of the propostional variables are false for all conditions. So what we are left with is a "contigency" which is neither a tautology nor a contradiction. Again this is about form and not the truth of the propositions themselves, that must be determined by other means.

Lastly, I thank anyone who bothered to read this, and I thank anyone who is willing to help me, I'm sucking in this class but I'm far from dead yet and I wish to apply what knowledge I gain at every opportunity. So thanx.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Sou,

Stimpy - could you explain in very simple terms why the two premises do not lead to the conclusion? I am assuming this to be the case even if we ruthlessly expunge the word obey from the jingle and use something like Win's alternative. (Although thinking some more on that I think Win was talking about our mathematical ideas of the laws of physics rather than the ultimate laws of physics.

It is the fallacy of composition, as Tricky said.

Formally, the syllogism can be expressed as follows:

All A have characteristic x.
B is made of A.
Therefore B has characteristic x.

This conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. Any number of counter examples can be presented to demonstrate this, such as:

All atoms are smaller than a chicken.
All animals are made of atoms.
Therefore all animals are smaller than a chicken.

The conclusion can be correct, for some values of A, B, and x, but it is not in general. That is why the syllogism is flawed. Given the proper definition of "obey", all three statements of the syllogism are true, but that doesn't change the fact that the third statement cannot be deduced from the first two. In order to make it into a formal proof, you would need additional steps. Specifically, you would need steps that explain how composition works with respect to atoms, and that explain which characteristics are preserved by composition, and which are not.


Loki,

You are asserting that there is something to the self which is not determined by anything outside of itself, and yet which is not random. That is contradictory. It must be one or the other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, let me just say that this is exactly the line I've been arguing with various people. However, dropping into Devils Advocate mode for a moment, why must "Will" reduce to either determinstic or random? Why can't we define 3 essential "behaviours" within the physical realm, rather than 2?

1. Determined
2. Random
3. Willed

In this instance, "Willed" is a "base attribute", not reducible to anything else. It is only available to "conscious" objects. Given that definition, why must "Willed" be a contradictory concept? Can't it be a standalone concept? Sure, it might be viewed as an "unlikely" property, but why must it be considered contradictory/illogical?

Good question. In principle, it is not. The problem is that simply stating it, as you have, does not constitute a formal definition. You have said that there are three mutually exclusive "behaviors", and attached names to them, but what are they?

I have a coherent formal definition for determinism, and a coherent formal definition for random. Under those definitions, anything must be one or the other. You can provide different definitions if you want, but when you do o, all you will be doing is taking behavior that I call either deterministic or random, and putting it in your "willed" category instead.

In other words, the argument is incoherent until such time as formal definitions for the three behaviors are provided, and even if you provide such definitions, the entire argument becomes a semantic one.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Soubrette]

Ok

I think I'm getting a glimmer of understanding here - thanks to all who have the patience to keep on explaining

In essence:

The terms are not well defined thus are open to too much interpretation.

The conclusion is not a forgone conclusion from the premises (although all three may be true - subject to the lack of definition)

Is this what I'm understanding so far?

Brooding Skill - I hope someone can help you with your mathematical proof - it's totally beyond me but thanks for adding it

Sou

 

[BroodingSkill]

Sou, thank you, I'm just tying to learn and repeating and applying seem to work well and I thank you all for your indugence.

 

[Soubrette]

Sou, thank you, I'm just tying to learn and repeating and applying seem to work well and I thank you all for your indugence.

I find repetition works for me - in the end

And I'm glad you added it to the thread - it was relevant (I think)

Sou

 

[Loki]

BroodingSkill,

Given: atoms obey TLOP
people are made of atoms
people obey TLOP
(I hope I haven't mistated that..)

Let: P=atoms
Q=TLOP
R=people

so I think we're left with this

P and Q
R and P
---------------
therefore R and Q

Nearly there ... the composition fallacy occurs because the syllogism actually resolves to :

P and Q
R and P1
---------------
therefore R and Q

P = Atoms
P1 = made of atoms.

The syllogism assumes P == P1, which is an implicit further premise.

 

[BroodingSkill]

Thanx Loki, the wording always trips me up. I guess that's one more thing I need to study.

 

[The Fool]

Franko's Jingle may be useful to franko. It may be useful to others as a point of debate. As far as Logic is concerned it is purely and simply a textbook example of Fallacy of composition. It could be used as a shining example of this fallacy in a first year logic class. It is simply a statement of franko's beliefs. Because it is structured in 3 lines doesn't make it a syllogysm. It is a fallacy. It is also not a sonnet, It is not a fourteen-line poem in iambic
pentameter with a carefully patterned rhyme scheme. It does not pass that test so it is not a sonnet. It does not pass many other tests either. It is a deliberately structured piece of smoke and mirrors used to support a fallacious argument.

It is not a joke either....It fails the "funny" test as well.....

 

[c4ts]

I do wish people would not call those three claims a syllogism. It's not. In fact it is not even an argument in the formal sense since its third statement (the alleged conclusion) does not follow by any rules of inference from the first two (the alleged premises)....

Unless "composition" is a valid rule of inference and not a formal fallacy, in which case all arguments of that form are valid:

All geometric figures are made of points.
Points have no dimension.
Geometric figures have no dimension.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

Tangent time!

In mathematical terms, here is why the syllogism is correct given only the first two statements:
p = 0 (given)
n = any positive integer >0 (given)
magnitude of any figure = 0n
0n = 0 (property of 0)

Here is why the first statement is false:

I say if points have no dimension, then no amount of points can make a geometric figure. Let all geometric figures have parts. Let points have no part. The part cannot be greater than the whole (postulate). In order for a point to have any part whatsoever, the part would have to be more than no part, therfore greater than the whole, therefore it is absurd. Bow to Euclid, Q.E.D.

 

[hammegk]

Dear Sou

Even after the oodles of logical obfuscation above, does your *I* seem more real to you than your bag-o-bones *me* that is perceived by your *I*?

Is it true that "Atoms obey the laws of the universe-that-is"?

Is it true your *me* is composed of "atoms"? But what do you know about your *I*? Is it "atoms" too?

 

[MRC_Hans]

So, if I take the liberty to conclude on the debate so far, in relation to Sou's original questions, the jingle is really a Tautology (True, but meaningless statement).

Ranging from the hard-core Materialist to devout Theist, it has the virtue of stating the obvious:

Atoms obey tlop: Yup, Materialist through Theist should have no problem with this.

People are made of atoms: Materialists and Theists might both say, well, but not entirely. The Materialist would mention information as an additional component, the Theist would, of course, mention Soul.

People obey tlop: Here the jury is out, but this is not especially between Materialists and Theists; scattered among the crowds are psi-, astrology-, black cat-, etc. believers.

None of it has any logic evidence value, and the purpose Franko is using it for (debunking free will) is moot. This doesnt even depend on how you view the laws of physics:

Having to act within a rule set only limits willful choice, it doesnt preclude it.

Accepting TLOP as a conscious entity does not preclude free will, as said entity might support it.

Then why the heck are we wasting so much time on it? Dunno


Hans

 

[Interesting Ian]

People are made of atoms: Materialists and Theists might both say, well, but not entirely. The Materialist would mention information as an additional component, the Theist would, of course, mention Soul.

You mean the materialist would say a non-materialist would say "soul". And by the way, I wouldn't say people are made of atoms at all. I find the notion perfectly stupid if not meaningless.

People obey tlop: Here the jury is out, but this is not especially between Materialists and Theists; scattered among the crowds are psi-, astrology-, black cat-, etc. believers.

Again this is utterly absurd. I have free will. And I mean what materialists call "libertarian free will".

 

[MRC_Hans]

You mean the materialist would say a non-materialist would say "soul". And by the way, I wouldn't say people are made of atoms at all. I find the notion perfectly stupid if not meaningless.



Again this is utterly absurd. I have free will. And I mean what materialists call "libertarian free will".

Mmmm, I have certainly heard non-materialists mention "soul" on numerous occasions.

People not made of atoms AT ALL? What then, in your opinion, are our bodies made of?

Well, we agree that its absurd. Thats exactly what I'm saying: The sillogism has no relevance for the discussion on free will at all.

Hans

 

[Peskanov]

Ian;

---
quote:
Again this is utterly absurd. I have free will. And I mean what materialists call "libertarian free will".
---

Sorry if this has been already discussed, but what makes you think you have "libertarian free will", and how do you tell the difference with other definitions of free will?
(Please, point me to the thread if it is already discussed)

 

[Interesting Ian]

Good question. In principle, it is not. The problem is that simply stating it, as you have, does not constitute a formal definition.

We don't need a formal definition nor is one possible in any case. We cannot give a formal definition of phenomenal consciousness yet it would hardly be possible to deny it exists.

You have said that there are three mutually exclusive "behaviors", and attached names to them, but what are they?

You don't know what free will is?

I have a coherent formal definition for determinism, and a coherent formal definition for random. Under those definitions, anything must be one or the other.

Ok you've made that claim. Now why don't you try and demonstrate it?

You can provide different definitions if you want, but when you do o, all you will be doing is taking behavior that I call either deterministic or random, and putting it in your "willed" category instead.

Ok, I decide to scratch my nose. You say that it is determined. Fair enough. But suppose that I deny the physical world is closed, so that my scratching of my nose is not completely physically caused. Would you say that my action is therefore mentally caused and is still therefore determined?